Tertiary Education and Management

, Volume 5, Issue 1, pp 79–94 | Cite as

Benchmarking Academic Standards in the UK

  • Mantz Yorke


The Dearing Report in the UK supported the use of benchmarking in higher education, taking as its stimulus the use of benchmarking in industrial and commercial contexts. The UK Government's concern regarding academic standards has raised the question of whether benchmarking could be applied to them.

This article reports on a pilot study of the benchmarking of academic standards in the UK, and demonstrates -- with reference to empirical data -- that benchmarking in this context needs to be approached differently from benchmarking in industrial/commercial milieux, since it requires a combination of finely-drawn comparisons and professional judgements if valid conclusions are to be drawn. It is argued that the complexity which underpins academic standards is inimical to the production of statements about standards that will be applicable across the span of a diverse national system of higher education. The argument presented can be applied, mutatis mutandis, to systems of higher education beyond the UK.


High Education Pilot Study Empirical Data Education Research National System 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alstete, J.W. (1995). Benchmarking in Higher Education: Adapting Best Practices to Improve Quality[ASHE-ERIC ReportNo. 5].Washington, DC: The GeorgeWashington University Graduate School of Education and Human Development.Google Scholar
  2. Becher, T. (1989). Academic Tribes and Territories: Intellectual Enquiry and the Culture of Disciplines. Milton Keynes: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bloom, B.S. (1956). Taxonomy of Educational Objectives.Handbook 1: Cognitive Domain. London: Longmans.Google Scholar
  4. Chapman, K. (1994). Variability of Degree Results in Geography in United Kingdom Universities, 1973–1990: Preliminary results and Policy Implications, Studies in Higher Education 19, 89–102.Google Scholar
  5. CVCP/UFC (1992). University Management Statistics and Performance Indicators in the UK. London: Committee of Vice Chancellors and Principals and the Universities Funding Council.Google Scholar
  6. Green, D. with Brannigan C, Mazelan P & Giles L (1994).Measuring Student Satisfaction: A Method of Improving the Quality of the Student's Experience? In S. Haselgrove (ed.), The Student Experience. Buckingham: SRHE and the Open University Press, 100–107.Google Scholar
  7. HEQC (1996a). Assessment in Higher Education and the Role of 'Graduateness'. London: HEQC.Google Scholar
  8. HEQC (1996b). Inter-institutional Variability of Degree Results: An Analysis in Selected Subjects. London: HEQC.Google Scholar
  9. HEQC (1997). Graduate Standards Programme: Final Report(2 vols). London: HEQC.Google Scholar
  10. Johnes, J. & Taylor, J. (1990). Performance Indicators in Higher Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Joint Performance Indicators Working Group (1994). Explanatory and Statistical Material to Accompany Consultative Report. Bristol: HEFCE (mimeo).Google Scholar
  12. Lonbay, J. (1994). Governmental and Professional Power and Influence in Legal Education in Europe. In T. Becher (ed.), Governments and Professional Education. Buckingham: SRHE and Open University Press, 76–85.Google Scholar
  13. Morrison, H.G., Magennis, S.P. & Carey, L.J. (1995). Performance Indicators and League Tables: A Call for Standards. Higher Education Quarterly 49(2), 128–145.Google Scholar
  14. Murphy, P. Hill, S. Linke, R. Aylward, D. & others (1994). Quantitative Indicators of Australian Research[NBEET commissioned report No. 27]. Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service.Google Scholar
  15. Murphy, P.S. (1995). Benchmarking Academic Research Output in Australia. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education 20(1), 45–57.Google Scholar
  16. NCIHE (1997). Higher Education in the Learning Society[Report of the National Committee of Inquiry into Higher Education]. London: HMSO.Google Scholar
  17. NUCCAT (1998). Modularity and Credit Frameworks: the NUCCAT Survey and 1998 Conference Report. Hull: Northern Universities Consortium for Credit Accumulation and Transfer, University of Lincolnshire and Humberside.Google Scholar
  18. QAA (1998). Quality Assurance: A New Approach. Higher Quality[the Bulletin of the Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education] No. 4 (October), 2–12, 18–20.Google Scholar
  19. Resnick, L.B., Nolan, K.J. & Resnick, D.P. (1995). Benchmarking Education Standards. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 17(4), 438–461.Google Scholar
  20. Vroeijenstijn, A.I. et al. (1992). International Programme Review Electrical Engineering. Utrecht: Vereniging van Samenwerkende Nederlandse Universiteiten [VSNU: Association of Universities in the Netherlands].Google Scholar
  21. Wolf, A. (1995). Competence-based Assessment. Buckingham: Open University Press.Google Scholar
  22. Woolf, H. & Turner, D. (1997). Honours Classifications: The Need for Transparency. The New Academic, Autumn, 10–12.Google Scholar
  23. Yorke, M. (1996). Indicators of Programme Quality. London: Higher Education Quality Council.Google Scholar
  24. Yorke, M. (1997a). A Good League Table Guide? Quality Assurance in Education 5(2), 61–72.Google Scholar
  25. Yorke, M. (1997b). The Elusive Quarry: Total Quality in Higher Education. Tertiary Education and Management 3(2), 145–156.Google Scholar
  26. Yorke, M., with Bell, R., Dove, A., Haslam, L., Hughes, Jones, H., Longden, B., O'Connell, C., Typuszak, R. & Ward, J. (1997). Undergraduate Non-completion in England. Report No. 1. In Undergraduate Non-completion in Higher Education in England. Bristol: HEFCE.Google Scholar
  27. Yorke, M., Bourdillon, B., Bridges, P., Collymore, D., Cooper, A., Fox, W., Haines, C., Turner, D. & Woolf, H. (1999). Benchmarking Academic Standards: A Pilot Investigation. In N. Jackson (ed.), Pilot Studies in Benchmarking Assessment Practice. Gloucester: Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 33–50.Google Scholar
  28. Yorke, M., Cooper, A., Fox, W., Haines, C., McHugh, P., Turner, D. & Woolf, H. (1996). Module Mark Distributions in Eight Subject Areas and Some Issues They Raise. In N. Jackson (ed.), Modular Higher Education in the UK in Focus London: HEQC, 105–107.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mantz Yorke
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Higher Education DevelopmentLiverpool John Moores UniversityLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations